Posted on 03/05/2007 9:16:23 AM PST by pissant
I would like to thank Polipundit and Michael Illions, who has been helping out my campaign, for giving me the opportunity to write a guest post about the injustice that has been done to two of our border guards, Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos, both of whom have been sentenced to jail for more than a decade each.
Now certainly our border patrol agents are not above the law and it is not acceptable for them to abuse or mistreat illegal aliens. That being said, the Border Patrol is America’s first line of defense against the terrorists, drug smugglers, and gangs who try to illegally enter the United States. Acting as the first line of defense for our country, the men and women of the Border Patrol are in a very dangerous position. Every day they risk their lives guarding our borders.
I have read the relevant portions of the trial transcript. Agents Ramos and Compean have a version of the facts that is different than the drug smuggler’s. However, it is not necessary to determine whose testimony is more believable (although I find the Border Agents’ testimony more credible than the drug smuggler’s) for this reason: even if you believe the drug smuggler’s testimony that he was slightly wounded while escaping to Mexico, his wounding cannot, by the greatest stretch of criminal justice, justify the 11 and 12 year prison sentences given to Ramos and Compean. The average convicted murderer in America spends less than 8 1/2 years behind bars. That means that Ramos and Compean have been given murder sentences for the slight wounding of a drug smuggler. Thus, the prison sentences of these two agents represent a severe injustice.
For those who point out that the agents picked up the expended brass from their pistols after the incident and did not report it to their superiors, the answer is simply that picking up brass and failure to report is not murder and does not justify a murder sentence in the federal penitentiary. As a member of the Armed Services Committee for 26 years, I have never seen a Marine or soldier treated as severely as Ramos and Compean.
We cannot turn our back on Agents Compean and Ramos or the rest of the public servants in the U.S. Border Patrol and that’s why I urge George Bush to pardon both agents. I intend to keep attention focused on this case to insure their safety while they are in prison and to secure their release as soon as possible so they can return home to their families. That is also why I introduced H.R. 563, which would pardon Compean and Ramos. The bill already has more than 85 sponsors in the House. If that bill fails and President Bush does not do the right thing, I pledge that if I’m elected President, one of my first acts will be to grant pardons to both agents.
From my reading, Juarez says he sees him in the ditch... He says he saw him "jump" or leap over the water. Ramos said he saw him IN the water when he first arrived (before Juarez). Compean testifies he "walked to the other side of the water" and agrees with the prosecutor's description that OAD "waded" through the water. OAD himself says he didn't jump over the water, telling how his feet were wet and describing the the water as being "up to his knees."
Now, we know everything is relative, right? Well, if we believe Juarez, who says he was on the side of the ditch, "halfway down" (i.e. 5 ft), when he sees this "very fast," "skinny," "small framed," "fast," "like a bullet" individual, we must conclude that Juarez is very, very slow. Because, during the time Juarez can get out from halfway in that ditch (5 feet), and walk from his car to the van (another 5 ft?), suddenly OAD is already at the vega and Compean has travelled 90 feet to the south side of the levee road. And he never ever saw Ramos, in the ditch or running that same 90 feet up the levee.
Again, you continue to rely on the most unbelievable witness of the bunch who is contradicted by each and every other witness.
Compean - Cross by Mr. Gonzalez 106 15 Q. Okay. And you saw the driver of the van. He's pretty 16 thin, correct? 17 A. Yes, sir. 18 Q. Pretty tall? 19 A. Yes, sir. 20 Q. And he moved pretty quickly, did he not? 21 A. I -- I -- I don't believe he was, but... 22 Q. Didn't he weigh about 160 pounds, would you guess? 23 A. I -- I wouldn't know.
Well, he was fast enough to get around Compean who swings his shotgun butt (excuse me, pushes his shotgun butt at OVD to keep him in the ditch...) at OVD and falls down. The question really isn't whether he was fast, it's weather he was faster than portly Compean.
But now that you brought this up lets review another incredible part of Compeans testimony. Juarez states he saw Comp bring his shotgun up and takes a swing at OVD's head that causes him to loose his balance. This would be consistent with a swing from left to right. Compean, on the other hand says he just tried to butt OVD, meaning a shot more straight at OVD, and this caused him to fall down.
There was testimony that no LEO in their right mind would so this as Compean states because it would allow the perp to grab the stock, yank it into their possession and fire into Compeans face because the business end would then conveniently be pointed at his snozzola.
Sounds reasonable to me.
And this means R&C are innocent?
No Bob. It means Juarez is a liar. And not a very good one.
No.
"Because, during the time Juarez can get out from halfway in that ditch (5 feet), and walk from his car to the van (another 5 ft?)..."
Juarez said he opened his door, went around it and to the ditch. If we assume he did that in a straight line then when he climbed out of the ditch he would have been the width of his door (3') the width of his truck (5-6') and half the distance between his truck and the van when he heard shots. We don't know how long it took him to climb out of the ditch but between the two spots I'd say we're looking at 6-10 seconds...more than enough time for Compean to get in position on the south side of the levee road to shoot OVD.
Have you had enough yet?
And that testimony was so damaging to the defendants that Kanof had to brush it off this way.
14 Now, the very fact they never told a living soul, 15 until Mr. Sanchez interviewed Mr. Compean on the 18th of March 16 that Osvaldo had a gun, tells you the truth. He didn't. And 17 this story of the cell phone and maybe something in his hand, 18 the reason I demonstrated that with the doctor is because 19 Mr. Ramos and Mr. Compean say Osvaldo -- Osvaldo ran to the 20 left, and Osvaldo says he ran to the right. And I, you know, 21 didn't know what the story was going to be about how the injury 22 occurred. But he's not left-handed. That's the most important 23 thing.The prosecution places a doctor on the stand and then essentially blows his testimony off by saying the most important thing is that Davila is not left-handed.
As to mathmatical equations and the numbers, you must be related to Mike Nifong. He also didn't think numbers and timing mounted to a hill of beans. Luckily most sane people do believe numbers and mathematical equations.
Forgot to ask (watched end of Duke v. VCU) Do you now have any idea as to why the defendants stipulated, outside that their attorneys recommended it?
Oh, okay! That's not the way I interpreted what you wrote. Thank you for clarifying.
The stipulation has been an area that has bothered me since the beginning of my looking at the case. As I have posted before, I would not have entered into the stipulation.
Me too. But I am also bothered by the things preceding that--like a statement in the affidavit attached to the original complaint that appears to be patently false. (I understand that has little (or no) effect in an appeal, but it is just one of the many things leading to my opinion that this case was not about justice.)
The only reasons I can think of it was done to protect Ramos on cross exam or was part of some type of trial strategy. Or maybe the attorneys didn't think they could attack it the extent necessary and decided to let the evidence be admitted. one problem with a stipulation is that as a party to the stipulation, you are vouching to the jury, judge and any court, the truthfulness of the evidence. I think this could hurt them in the appeal.
I think it was part of some strategy (a failed one, imo.)
And how does this "lie" help put Compean away which is what you're suggesting by stating Juarez lied his whole way through the trial?
More insignificant flotsam and jetsam from the trial that you and AC fixate on because it's all you got.
I can't believe the fed's screwed up so bad and no caught it. Normally, a memo of that nature is turned over to the 'subject of investigation' as part of a termination package.
This whole case gets stinkier by the minute!
I think you missed calcowgirl's point. A turtle could have made the trip from the ditch to where Juarez heard the shots in 10 seconds. /sarc
The doctors testimony was devastating to R&C. While the defense wanted to show the bullet could only have entered OVD because he was turned to point, the doctor was clear the trajectory and injuries were consistent with someone who was running where the butt and pelvis shift left to right. The doctor also testified the wound not only was consistent with a man running but when the bullet finally entered the right thigh, that entry wound was consistent with a man in a full run with his right foot out in front and the left back.
Sometimes I wonder if we're talking about the same trial.
How about in six?
erton--Is this sarcasm?????
They did not stipulate to any "assault", ever.
I see a big difference between a LEO firing in the line of duty, in fear of their life, and an "assault."
My guess is that when the DHS finished their investigation, determined it to be a bad shoot, they recommended the criminal prosecution, put in their report and investigative notes with the evidence they gathered, put in a box, put a bow on top and delivered it to the local USA office.
The USA was brought in sometime on or before March 16 when OAD was given immunity (and again on March 18 to give proffer letters to Juarez and Vasquez). As of March 18, no one other than Mendoza had been interviewed. None of the other agents--or supervisors. IMO, the investigation had hardly begun at that point.
Of Juarez's ridiculous lies? Absolutely!
Okay, now that was sarcasm, right? You do mean damaging to the prosectuion, correct? (That's the way I saw it).
I'm having a hard time reading folks tonight.
What is it about "They agreed to the stipulation because Ramos' bullet hit Davila, after all." that you fail to understand.
P.S. The defendants did not stipulate to that only Ramos did. And they couldn't get into the shooting any more than they did. Read the darn stipulation. None of the additional witnesses they could have called know one whit about the shooting. They only know about the bullet. The one witness that testified anything about what the shooting might have entailed, Dr. Warme, had to be marginalized by Kanof in her closing.
And you haven't answered my last question about the timing of the prosecutor's assignment.
I'm not following you.
In this case, Blanchette wrote a letter to a supervisor expressing concerns about a fellow agent (Rene Sanchez). The supervisor turned it over to DHS-OIG Special Agent Chris Sanchez.
Instead of investigating the concerns expressed in the letter, Chris Sanchez gave the letter to Rene Sanchez. Rene Sanchez then contacted Blanchette and asked him why he was trying to rat on him!
I'm not sure who you mean by "feds" as they are all feds! But OIG had an obligation to treat that information confidentially, not to put Blanchette in a position of defending himself against the very suspect person he had filed the complaint about.
Blanchette did testify, but I'm not sure it was in front of the jury. That testimony was sealed. Certain testimony from Chris Sanchez was also sealed.
It still doesn't answer the more curious question--was Rene Sanchez indicted as the bench conference indicates, and on what charges.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.